Revolver 15 - Chain 6

I was very excited to watch the Labor Day footage Rob took, especially this game.  With a win over Revolver on Saturday (14-11) where credit was given to Chain's pressure, I was curious to see what happened to make the result 15-6 for the Moons.  With a loss like 15-14 to Furious you can envision a close game where one mistake just happened to fall the opponents way.  Even the win over Revolver the previous day, while a bit more decisive at 14-11, still felt like a close game between elite teams.  But seeing a score like 15-6 makes me think one team was outmatched.  I was excited that Rob put this game up first because I wanted to see the strategic shifts that made the difference.  The big question I had was how Revolver's defense would stifle Chain's offense so they could only score 6 points.

Watching the tape a few times it looks like it was less a case of Revolver shutting down Chain's O and more a case of Chain completely giving the game away to an efficient Revolver team.  Of the significant turns that I saw Chain give up most boiled down to chemistry.  Kind of surprising that chemistry would be an issue in a final, but I guess that is what happens when Chesapeake gets rained out.  All of the other teams had been to an elite tournament before Labor Day, and while it didn't show during Saturday (still eagerly waiting for that tape Rob), maybe that was the difference.

Here is a quick breakdown of the turns I thought were most significant:
-Reset miscommunication between Asa and Swanson
-Reset miscommunication between Grant and Swanson
-Huck from Swanson that was too far for Dylan
-Huck from Nick Lance that was too far for Dylan
-Swanson throws a swing pass behind a cutting Asa
-Poole throws and inside break behind Asa
-Miscommunication when Spiva breaks off a cut as CK is releasing
-Reset toss to CK from Dylan is caught for a callahan
-Miscommunication huck from Nick Lance to Grant as he turned under

Chain looked in control of this game early, getting a quick break off of a Revolver errant throw.  But after that it looked like Chain players didn't know what each other were doing.  Between the resets and the miscommunications Chain players were often caught changing direction right at the point of release.  The hucks felt like desperation throws (although early in the count) because they were typically right of the pull and from a stand still.  Great throws for distance, but no flow or good angle.  I can't recall a single time that a Revolver player got a clean D on a Chain player.  Even the throws behind Asa weren't blocked by Revoler.  Asa was wide open, but Chain couldn't get the disc in front of him.  From Greg is was particularly terrible because Asa was wide open cutting to the open side from an unmarked Greg.  Poole's misthrow was a little better because it was an inside break, but that throw also felt like a desperation throw.  Also, when did Dylan become a handler for Chain.  I can think of two places Dylan is not one of the best players in the game: at the reset and as a distribution handler.

I guess the lesson to learn here is how important it is to have your players on the same page.  To know where the next cut is coming from, and to know where the reset is going.  One of the big differences I've noticed watching Revolver is that they are very good at knowing where the next look is and having a person there.  In contrast to Chain looking a little frazzled on the reset, Revolver almost always looked effortless.  They typically threw a quick pass to a particular spot before the mark or reset defender was prepared (I'm starting to call this the Thrower's Option).  Even when that was shut down it was clear that the game plan was either to run the reset behind the thrower (in the middle of the field) or run the reset down the line and pull another person backfield (trapped on the line).  I would have been hard pressed to believe that small chemistry issues could result in a 15-6 game, but that is what it felt like watching the tape. After Rob puts up more video I'll spend a little looking at the rest and seeing what is there.

One last note:  I think part of Revolver's victory was determination by Robbie Cahill.  He caught more deep shots than I have even seen him catch for Revolver, and independent of who was on him.  I don't know if the Saturday loss stuck in his craw, but after his first goal he threw an uncharacteristic spike that made me think this game was a little personal.  Great game Revolver.  We'll get 'em next time, Chain.

Thoughts on all of the ultivillage footage

Quite simply, it has been a great summer to be an out of touch ultimate fan. For those of us who aren't traveling to these great tournaments/exhibitions, it is wonderful to see the footage shot from a steady camera at a good angle. Even waiting a few days/weeks to see the games is fine since I'm not really in it for the final score. It is all about watching the technique and strategy.

So here are a few of my unorganized thoughts about the video. Kyle is going through the NexGen videos one by one if you want to check that out for more detail.

NexGen: They looked real good. I was surprised by their wins, even if they were against early season/understaffed versions of elite teams. It made me feel like the separation between elite college players and elite club players isn't as wide as I would like. Especially when you look at those members of NexGen that are getting starting O-line roles on the big club teams. Their style seemed a little erratic at times, and maybe a little huck happy, but they were good at moving the disc and seeing the whole field. I saw a lot of high release throws, especially for short breaks. The big thing that I didn't like was all of the spiking. I understand that these are excitable kids playing in big games against (in many cases) their idols. But the amount of spiking, and the intensity makes the video hard to show middle/high school kids since they are so impressionable. Shame, because there are some great gems in there about breaking the mark, seeing the field and hustle. Unfortunately our middle school kids will mimic anything they see and while some of the more team-oriented spikes were fine (George doing the bus for example), the kicking and elbow spiking is too much.

ETP: This is much more my style. Teams are gearing up for the season, strategy can be seen and trends detected. It has been a few years since I have been to or really watched Nationals, but in that time it seems like everyone has adopted the sideline stack iso pull play. Even Sockeye seems to pull everyone to the line immediately after the pull. I'd figured this was going to happen for a while, as defenses get used to playing against horizontal stack it makes sense that offenses shift to be fresh. In football we go from cover 2 to press ever few years, why not in ultimate. Since the 00's were a decade of mostly horizontal and defenders tend to be young, todays crop of elite open defenders don't have a lot of vert stack experience and it shows.

Watching the games it looks like most teams can't really hold a mark and defenders are constantly caught on the wrong side of their guy. The marking makes sense. Teams were afraid of the long ball and the center under cut from years of H, so the adjustment was to go flat and poach off of the side handlers. Great strategy for horizontal stack ends up being terrible for vert. Reset defense seems poor, and like I said marks aren't stopping anything. Typically the breaks are coming around the mark, but I'll get to that later. Right now it looks like the marks are going for frustration rather than containment. Hoping that by getting the thrower to go with their 4th option they can get a misread or miscommunication turn. That sounds like great defense, and often is, but unlike and H, there are multiple lanes in a vert stack and often defenders are getting caught on the wrong side by an overly mobile mark. I'm sure defenses will adjust, but that may be a big difference maker at Nationals this year. Not at the top of the heap, but which 8 teams get into quarters may depend on who can run a good vertical defense and actually contain the disc. Right now it looks like Revolver is the best at it, but I haven't seen any footage of Chain.

Revolver also seems to be running this offense the best. They move the disc laterally well, in part because they know how to set up the swing cut well (just like Jam did in '08) and seem to have a knack for being where the thrower is looking. Most of the offenses I see (particularly out of the mid-atlantic) aren't on the same page yet. The thrower is flipping through lanes quickly, but cutters aren't in those lanes fast enough. The difference that I see out of Revolver, Sockeye, Ironside and hopefully Chain is a commitment to stack management so that they consistently get the swing when the window is available. One other note about offense is that most of the breaks I am seeing by 2nd tier teams are around and high. Revolver, Mark Sherwood and Mac Taylor in particular, is well utilizing the quick inside break. This gets the disc upfield and typically leaves the thrower with a longer time to throw before the mark gets there. Those are big differences, especially as teams ty to get flow downfield.

There is plenty more to say, but I want to watch the Labor Day footage first.

On a more coaching note, Middle School season is here and off to a good start yesterday. Having Jess Cofrin (new Women's Head Coach) helping is a great asset, especially for the 50 kids we had yesterday. I've got some good ideas for how to teach these new players space and flow. I'll comment on those after I get a chance to try them out.

Moving over to Facebook.

So, I've decided to amp up my written contributions to the sport and move over to facebook. I have three new articles up on the Facebook page. Come check them out!

Reponse to Win The Fields

This is a response to Lou Burruss' post on his blog Win The Fields regarding Women's Centex, Bid Allocation, Parity, and Oregon's injuries.

On Bid Allocation: There was overwhelming feedback from players to “make the regular season meaningful” and to “stop determining bid allocation from the previous year’s nationals.” Those are two of the big driving forces behind the structure this year. I can imagine coaches challenge now of having duel, oft-conflicting goals (help earn your conference/region bids and develop the lower half of your roster), but this was a very known trade-off and I have a hard time imagining this fundamental part of the structure changing in future years.

Also on Bid Allocation: It has got to be better than having to play consolation games at Nationals to earn bids the following year both for the teams playing and the teams dependent on that strength bid (who are often not the same).

On ‘messed up’ rosters: While I’m too lazy to look back at the actual USAU rules, I believe that there was some sort of threat of penalty to intentionally “mess up” rosters. That said, it would not be too difficult. Add one unique non-playing but eligible student to your roster above and beyond your actual roster for each regular season tournament. For the events that help bolster your rating keep that player on your series roster. I do believe that this is highly unethical and am surprised to see you question whether it is or not. I like the idea that someone mentioned on the USAU board that, for teams with ineligible rosters at some events, only the games from that event that improved that teams overall season rating be dropped (any games that hurt their rating with ineligible players be dropped).

On parity: I agree with you that coaching is a factor, but the other big factor impacting that is the growth of HS Ultimate. You mentioned Flywheel. On that ’09 team they had three HS experienced freshman (Annie Fisher, Paula Seville, and Vicki Chang). Those three added depth to that team and have helped with long term continuity of the program.

In Lindsay’s response she mentioned the Tufts sophomores, Hailey and Claudia, both former HS players. Having them in addition to a solid coach and a solid groups of Juniors and Seniors makes Tufts competitive with top teams (albeit after an easier road to the top bracket).

And Lindsay’s own UNC is led by former HS player Leila Tunnel and bolstered by a solid young crop of former HS players from the work that Lindsay and others have done building the youth scene in NC (How she has time for it all, I will never understand)

On Oregon’s Injuries: I realize now that wasn’t a very fair question to ask. I know the difficulties of trying to impartially comment on a topic I have a vested interest in. I should have expected one of those stock coaching answers. That said, based on all the scores I’ve seen and all the commentaries I’ve read it seems pretty clear that the second tier of teams is large, but if Oregon is healthy they stand alone in the top tier. If Oregon is banged up, the field is wide open. At least that’s the story I’m going in to the series with.

Throwing or running: Which will benefit you more?

This past weekend, I had the pleasure of getting a ride to and from (not to mention playing) Wildwood with Josh Markette. This was the most we’d hung out in a few years, so there was a lot of chatter about ultimate-related and non-ultimate-related things. At one point, Josh mentioned that he’s not as comfortable with his throws as he used to be, because he never throws regularly anymore—outside of practice, all his workout time is dedicated to the track or gym.

This really struck me—this is Cricket we’re talking about; when have his throws not been there?—but it’s something faced by a lot of players. After a certain point (likely post-college), for those continuing to play at a high level, all of one’s discretionary workout time becomes focused on getting stronger and faster, and less on disc skills. It’s a lot easier to hit the gym for an hour than it is to find someone to throw with in the middle of the day.

Despite working out hard all winter, a friend of mine did not, as she hoped to, make BENT this year. She came to tryouts in great condition, but she’d hardly touched a disc in the preceding months. And this player is a capable handler with a monster forehand, so I can’t imagine her throws had seriously degraded since last club season. Regardless, they were not as practiced as the BENT captains would have liked to see.

Many players, looking to get to the next tier, have found themselves in situations similar to the above examples. Whether it’s the offseason and staring down tryouts, or the months of preparation leading up to the club or college series, there’s never enough time to do everything one wants to do to feel prepared. So ask yourself what’s going to benefit you the most in coming weeks: hitting the gym or track for a few more reps, or finding someone with whom you can fine-tune your throws? To further complicate things, it’s likely the answer will change over the course of the year.

Physically, I felt better at Wildwood than I have at a tournament all year, but I had some gruesome turnovers on throws I used to be able to make, so I have an idea what I could be focusing on in August.

USUA Nationals

Wow.

Coaching a college team has come and gone for me (for now). What a blur. On one hand, I'm thinking a ton about what I would have done differently, what I could do better, suggestions for the team next year, etc. On the other hand, I'm enthusiastic about just being a player again.

Competition:

I can't help but think that this was a down year for college ultimate, talent-wise. I never saw a team dominate a la mid-2000s Hodags or Tim Gehret's Florida. It seemed like in a group of 6-7 elite teams, and the team that had the best few days any given weekend could win that tournament. The weekend of Nationals it was definitely Florida. Top to bottom, it seemed like they rallied around Brodie extremely well. Also, props to Chris Gibson for being the workhorse of that team, guy was always guarding the other team's best player.

My coaching performance:

Overall, I was pretty happy with it. I had a couple of players tell me that I seemed to grow into the role more at this tournament than at any other. I feel like in a couple of our wins I suggested some strategic adjustments that contributed to our success in those games.

One interesting idea that I came away from the games with was the unique way in which the overall amount of time on the field associated with ultimate affects coaching performance. As a player, the way that muscle fatigue over the length of a day, then the length of the weekend affects your ability to sprint, cut, and throw is pretty obvious.

What became clearer to me this weekend is the toll that playing 2 games a day for 3 days takes on your mind and on your voice. As a more vocal coach, I was unable to speak above a squeak on Sunday. More importantly, following an emotional and high-adrenaline win over Oregon on Saturday, I had trouble staying zeroed in on what was going on against Cornell later that day. As players, we tend to eat well, drink, stay in the shade, etc. to keep our bodies prepared for more exertion. I'm curious whether there are good ways to fight mental fatigue over the course of the tournament (this is of course relevant to both coaches and players.

The tournament itself:

The layout, schedule, format, facilities, and amenities were top-notch this year. I was impressed with how observers handled games, Player packs were actually full of stuff people wanted, which I'm sad I can't say is true of my only opportunity to attending natties as a player last year. I thought this year's nationals represented an awesome step forward for the sport and that Madison, which is full of ultimate enthusiasts who were fantastic as volunteers all weekend, was a great venue. I think future championship sites based in ultimate 'hubs' (ATL, Pacific Northwest, Minneapolis, Boston) would be wise choices.

Coaching certification:

Travis and I attended the required clinic for coaches who wanted sideline access during semi-finals (a credential we wouldn't end up needing, sadly). Overall, I thought that the most useful aspect of the meeting was an opportunity to get to know the other coaches that were at nationals and to learn a bit from the ones with more experience. We were generally in agreement on most subjects and I think having met some of the other coaches sets a good precedent for cordial interactions when teams meet in tournaments.

The material we covered wasn't all that interesting, mostly common sense stuff. I understand the necessity from a liability perspective, but I wasn't floored by the amount of depth that the USUA (still weird) was able to present in a shortened session.

What bothered me most about the presentation of the coaching clinic was the guy responsible for presenting and what appeared to be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to coaching. What we were presented with was clearly geared toward high school coaches and I don't believe our presenter had ever actually coached any level but high school. The presenter had this obsession with the "soccer parents of the future," an assumed demographic of moms and dads who are hyper-controlling and obsessed with their kids' well-being, even after they have left the nest and started up with college ultimate. I have yet to see one of these parents in an ultimate program I have been associated with. Moreover, I haven't seen many infringe on college activities generally.

To me, there are some obvious differences between age groups in question including, but not limited to: a) athletic ability, b) competitiveness, c) capacity for rational thought. What resulted was a program that was less geared toward players on clubs that have a lot more autonomy. The bulk of responsibility for both Georgia and Minnesota fell on the captains. I'm not totally sure that the University of Georgia's administrative folks even had an awareness that Trav and I were involved with the team, aside from spillover from when Trav dealt with them as a player/captain. I think presenting as though we have some kind of liability/responsibility related to the University proper is a bit silly, honestly.

On a related note, the whole thing was presented in terms of some kind of idealized world, what I assume to be the USUA's vision of the future. This vision projects a lot more control onto coaches than we are actually shouldered with. The requirements of coaches under this rubric such as full attendance at every practice and tournament and responsibility for good facilities were better suited to paid employees of university sponsored athletic teams. As of right now, we are volunteers (consultants really), whose role on the team is subject to decisions made by captains and officers of sports clubs that are on the periphery of a school's interest. In my opinion, it would be a lot more helpful for the USUA to provide coaches useful information based on the realities of ultimate (i.e. where we should hope to b with regard to responsibilities/administrative stuff/shaping our teams' behaviors) today than to prepare them for what they believe the future might look like (this isn't to say that investment in training ideas for this future is necessarily a bad thing...)

The UPA's new "brand"

I can see the appeal of the name/image change, but I think there are more than a few problems. Some of these are unfounded fears and opinions about what we might lose by abandoning the upa. One of my favorite aspects of the old organization was how much they talked about it being a "grassroots" organization. Admittedly, this cliche is pretty devoid of meaning, but in reading about the USUA, I haven't heard any of the old democratic rhetoric being thrown around. Of course, I didn't seen a ton of anyone's suggestions taken up visibly by the upa, but I least there was some indication that the intention was there. Second, and this one's a little more silly, I'm not sure if the creating a United States Ultimate Association will mean that Canada can't play with us any more. It just seems like they've got such a strong base of interest in the game (Canadians seem to love weird sports) and their teams have provided a lot of history to our competitive Series. Who knows if these changes will actually happen, but it all seems like reasonable speculation at this point.

Probably my biggest concrete concern with these new developments is the hiring of the new "CEO of ultimate" (his words, not mine), Tom Crawford. Of course, the discursive suggestion associated with that self-given title should raise some eyebrows, given that he also told us he doesn't know much about our sport. Given his admitted lack of knowledge of the game, I wish he'd be more up front with the fact that he's more in charge of changing the public image ultimate than ultimate itself. I wouldn't want anyone with such an obvious expertise deficit to presume that he has a role to play in changing the essential mechanics of how we play, but it seems like that could be a possibility.

I saw the new CEO a couple of times over the course of the weekend. What struck me the most was his interest in telling people about the 10's of 1000's of coaches he's worked with, rather than taking an interest in our community. Despite his 'deep interest' in coaching development, he left the clinic before the coaches started talking about their concerns, leaving little chance that we could glean much useful knowledge from his experiences with the olympic committee, nfl, mlb, nasa and whoever else he's worked with. He seemed to spend a lot of time driving around in a golf cart and not much time watching the game. During finals, he tossed out hats with his new brand on them rather than actually watching Florida win the thing.

Suffice it to say, I wasn't really impressed with the UPA's choice of a fresh take on leadership.

Finals:

Really the worst ultimate I saw all weekend, with bad calls on both ends. Of course, this is a shame given the amount of talent on both teams. Chippy calls, long delays, and some less than sportsmanlike conduct made a lot of the vocal displeasure coming out of the crowd reasonable. I had watched both teams all weekend and they were playing with less unreasonable calls and unnecessary physicality in every other game. The problem of lesser sportsmanship in games of greater importance in ultimate remains one of the toughest things for me about the game.

I've been on teams with rivalries with both of these teams, so it was weird to be rooting for Carleton. I've never had much respect for the style of modern Florida ultimate and this year was much the same. Their calls and physicality really bothered me less than what I perceived to be their disinterest in the game. Brodie and a few other key players never seemed to put their full effort into working for the win (note that this is totally different than making the game seem effortless) and to me this connotes a general disrespect for opponents as well as the sport. Couple this with (limited) media exposure from CBS College Sports and I think their win was not great for the game.

From a spectating perspective, despite being able to relate to their feelings about the outcome of the game, I thought that the crowd booing Florida after their win was totally bush league. For everyone who is unfamiliar with ultimate, it makes the players who make up the majority of live audience seem like petty folks and sore losers. I honestly would have preferred crickets.

The big finish:

I don't think I'll post much more on this blog. Honestly, I meant to write more over the course of the season. If I get time, I may do a few small things on some stuff that occurred to me while we prepped for natties, but we'll see.

Thanks for reading. Good luck in club.

CUT vs. Florida

First, congratulations to Florida. I went into watching this game the same way that I went into the 2006 Final against Wisconsin. I felt like there was no way that Kurt, Tim and company could stop an army of solid ultimate players. Again, I was wrong.

I feel like I should give a nod to Florida's strategy. Say what you will about their tactics, fouls and calls, they have reminded us all that a 3 man show can still win high level games (at least in college). They run very shallow and their big three are just hard to stop. They continually got the hucks they wanted to offenders that were (50% of the time) behind all of the defense.

Which leads me to the reason I wanted to post this here. From a coaching standpoint, I felt that I understood Florida's game plan, and was confused by CUTs. Florida slowed down the game with calls and TOs, relied on their athletic prowess to get Ds and avoided having long points. All smart with their team. Carelton moved the disc quickly, reversing the field well and forced backhand most of the game.

I was hoping someone could explain why Carelton continued to force backhand trough the end of the game. I think I understand it as an initial strategy: backhand hucks take longer to develop, Brodie has a monster flick, maybe the wind was a factor? But after watching the way that Cole and Brodie work with the disc it seemed like a losing battle.

Both Brodie and Cole would throw and try to get the disc back immediately. That's much easier to do off of backhand, where you are basically taking your first step, than off of a flick. That can easily be stopped by having your mark get the first step and stop the flow continuation, but Brodie and Cole made that difficult. Not only are they long pivots, but they continually squared their shoulders to the middle of the field. This forced the mark to shift over (more parallel to the sideline), or allow quick flick resets. Not to mention the added pressure this put on the CUT reset defenders who, despite getting some decent covers and a turn were often out of position to stop the down the line cut.

So, my question to all of you coaches out there. Is there something that I am missing behind CUT's strategy? I can understand starting backhand, but it seemed like CUT never adjusted to the way Florida was playing it. Someone please show me what I am missing?

The UPA Unofficial Ombudsman

I'm starting a new recurring "feature" where I talk about timely UPA issues and give my opinion and, where appropriate, offer suggestions. I know there will be some that say "Oh that Kyle Weisbrod, he IS the UPA." Yeah, I spent 4 1/2 years employed there and another 3 years on the Board. I still occasionally contribute to the magazine. But I work with the UPA because I care about the sport of Ultimate and felt the UPA was (and still believe it is) the best way for players to effect change in the sport. There are plenty of times when I've been frustrated by the UPA - both Board and Staff decisions and policies. There are also times when I've been proud of the UPA and what they are doing for the sport.

I also still have plenty of connections to the UPA - people on both board and staff, so hopefully I can actually get some of the inside reasoning behind some of the UPA's less popular decisions and give my subjective opinion on it.

So, here goes. The Ombudsman is open for business. What do you want me to opine on?

Summing up AC Regionals

I've been meaning to put some other thoughts up about team/coaching preparation for crucial tournaments, especially the series, but they're all still kind of half-baked. Hopefully, they'll be good fodder for later.

As for now, the fact that Jojah barely gritted out a qualifying spot at nationals seems more relevant.

A couple of observations:

-I think in Ultimate generally, but especially college, mental state has as much to do with a team's success as talent. I think it had something to do with Florida's failing to qualify last year, and we definitely had problems with it at Minnesota (as a team we were always terrified to play CUT and the Hodags when it mattered). This weekend, Florida was ready to play and play well, whupping us and everyone else they ran up against. Minnesota also seemed to get the monkey off its back with a couple of wins against Wisconsin and a close game with Carleton (this after losing to Carleton GOP at sectionals).

We brought the fire at weird times this weekend and in the end it came during our most critical points. Our game-to-go never got out of hand and the guys rallied admirably when we were down unexpectedly in an elimination game. While a couple of timeouts where Travis and I spoke (I usually yelled) about waking up generated a point or two of intensity, this usually fizzled pretty quickly. It was ultimately up to them to decide how bad they wanted it. This weekend, they wanted it just enough.

-My AC all-region based on what I've seen in the regular season and at regionals:

Rusty Ingold-Smith (UNCW)
Tyler Conger (UVA)
Nick Lance (GA Tech)
Brodie Smith (UF)
Chris Mullinix (UT)
Taylor "Tree" Goforth (Kennesaw)
Peter Dempsey (UGA)

FOTY: Fletcher Hartline (UGA). Clearly I'm biased by the fact that I coach him and by the fact that nobody from other teams has really mentioned their freshmen to me. Still, I'm confident that Fletcher played more crucial D points for us than any other frosh in the region. On the field, it's impossible to distinguish him from our best deeps.

-If I were to seed Nationals without much understanding of the rules beyond that you can't seed lower regionals finishers ahead at nationals:

1/ Oregon
2/ Carleton
3/ Colorado
4/ Florida
5/ Minnesota
6/ Wisconsin
7/ Cornell
8/ Cal
9/ Pitt
10/ Harvard
11/ UNCW
12/ Georgia
13/ Illinois
14/ Middlebury
15/ Michigan
16/ UCSB
17/ UCSD
18/ Tx State
19/ Iowa
20/ Kansas

I'm sure that some of the results I haven't looked over say different, but this is just where I would put them if I had to seed subjectively.

-Finally, damn it's exciting to get to coach for 3 more weeks.

Paideia Cup Finals

This past Sunday we (Paideia Men's Varisty) played Amherst in the finals of the Paideia Cup. We had played them on the last game of Saturday, losing 4-15. It was a solid drubbing where we failed to successfully deal with their 1-3-3. After a tough start to a semi-final against Columbia, we rallied in the 2nd half to win decisively (13-9). We had good momentum, and although a little banged up we felt prepared to face Amherst again.

The lone bright point from the previous day was that we knew we could play solid defense against them and get some blocks. We we're hoping to get a few of those breaks and stay in it this time. The game felt completely different than the one the previous day. We stopped their 1-3-3 and forced them to go man. We certainly made them work on offense. But, while we got a few blocks, we only mustered one break and lost 15-7.

This was my first time coaching against Amherst. What surprised me (although according to Mike this is normal) is that in a final that they had won handily they played only 9 deep. Don't get me wrong, I am no stranger to riding your horses when the time is right, and maybe it was out of respect for our team, but subbing only 9 deep felt strange. They didn't play as many points on the weekend as we did, so maybe that factored in, but Tiina told me (and I completely believe it) that her boys could run a few more like that if they had to. While our boys ran their legs off and did a great job against 5A athletes, I could see the struggle on their faces at the end of each point.

As Amherst went tight with their rotation we were "forced" to do the same. Only they have stronger horses and ours were destined to get tired in an ever losing battle. I don't normally call subs, but the times that I have my goal has been to use my bench to fill in space (on D) and run my best players hard in key moments to get breaks. Instead we ran just as tight, scored a few when things worked well, gave up breaks when they didn't, and aside from some spectacular single plays could never get those breaks back. I feel like I could have tried to sacrifice our defensive points with weaker lines in hopes of being more consistent on offense, but I don't know if it would have mattered much

Hats off to Amherst for a great tournament. I wont be there, but I will be incredibly impressed if any team can beat them at Easterns this year. If they win it will make 2 years in a row that Paideia has lost to an eventual "National" champion in the finals of our own tourney. If only we could find a way to play ourselves in the final.